[__ Science __ ] Evolution Is a Scientific Law?

[KV-44-v1]

Let me rephrase the question.

For Christians who believe in evolution, how do you explain we evolved from primates when the Bible teaches that we are formed from the dust of the ground and made in God's image?

A simple answer will be fine.

Not looking to argue.

Take Barb's approach, allegorize the Bible, then insist that taking the Bible plainly is "literalizing" it. God started off His Word Truthfully, not as some big ol vague mystery to confuse people.
Here's a reconciliation of evolotion, mans word - and God's Word.

Just turn parts of the Bible into an allegory instead of letting the Bible shape your worldview. Nitpick at parts you think are strange, and assume that they turn the ""problematic parts"" into allegories.
Just add allegory so that the Bible does not contradict anything. Easy quick (and totally-not-risky! :D) fix for all your "Bible problems"!

Instead of working based on a Biblical framework and examining critically, just lazily slap "allegory" labels!

Barbarian
If you take away the literal history in Genesis how is the Genesis account, under your paradigm, any better than a Native American folktale about the creation of the universe?

 

[Barbarian]

Take Barb's approach, allegorize the Bible, then insist that taking the Bible plainly is "literalizing" it. God started off His Word Truthfully

Just accept allegories and parables as they are. God isn't lying if He uses allegory. Jesus isn't lying if He used parables.

Here's a reconciliation of evolotion, mans word - and God's Word.

God didn't talk about evolution or DNA or protons. You're trying to force Him to be science and technology. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. If you don't get that, you're missing His message to you.

If you take away the literal history in Genesis

That would be as bad as taking away the figurative parts of Genesis. Why not just accept each as it is?

how is the Genesis account, under your paradigm, any better than a Native American folktale about the creation of the universe?

YE creationism is more than a "folktale." But accepting Genesis for what it is, rather than forcing a literal revision of it, certainly is better than the modern invention of YE creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

What are these "desires" you speak of and what makes you think YEC's would want to do such?

They aren't happy with the way God created things.

Genesis 1:21 "And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Yep. The issue is, YE creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Nowhere in Scripture is there ANY ROOM for the Kind Barrier to be breached.

Nowhere in scripture is there any mention of a "kind barrier." That's another YE insertion.

God created the winged bird.

He created you, too. Like all other living things, He used natural means to make your body. Only your immortal soul is given immediately.

God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

"The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying).

So the Bible is in error about this? I don't think so. Either God is right or you are right. Not much of a choice, is it?

Really? Why do you tout PLURAL "CreationistS", when you only have one single outlier, Kurt Wise?

First, Dr. Wise actually knows the evidence in detail. But he's got lots of company. Dr. Todd Wood, Dr. Harold Coffin, and others. The difference is that they actually know the evidence, and refuse do deny what they know exists.

What is a kincetic larynx and whats kinetic about it?

Moves the way the syrinx does. It's how we know maniraptoran dinosaurs chirped before birds even evolved.

 

[Barbarian]

For Christians who believe in evolution, how do you explain we evolved from primates when the Bible teaches that we are formed from the dust of the ground and made in God's image?

God says animals were formed from the earth. And science has found that the evidence does indicate that the Earth did indeed produce life that way. Man's body, like that of other animals was from the Earth. It's in our minds and spirits that we are in God's image. Jesus says that God is a spirit, and He says a spirit has no body.

If we can believe Jesus , then the "image" is not a physical one.

 

[Barbarian]

My response:

If God "played dice" with the creation of man, then that means He is not directly responsible for mankind's creation.

You're assuming that God's power is limited to necessity, but He can't use contingency. But He is omnipotent.

We happened by chance.

That would require that God be limited in His ability.

And I don't think that's the case.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

 

[Barbarian]

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. Can you give an example?

Foundation of Genetic Algorithms​

Genetic algorithms are based on an analogy with the genetic structure and behavior of chromosomes of the population. Following is the foundation of GAs based on this analogy –

1. Individuals in the population compete for resources and mate
2. Those individuals who are successful (fittest) then mate to create more offspring than others
3. Genes from the “fittest” parent propagate throughout the generation, that is sometimes parents create offspring which is better than either parent.
4. Thus each successive generation is more suited for their environment.

Genetic Algorithms - GeeksforGeeks

A Computer Science portal for geeks. It contains well written, well thought and well explained computer science and programming articles, quizzes and practice/competitive programming/company interview Questions.

www.geeksforgeeks.org

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques​

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques

Although the advancements in automotive diesel engines in the last two decades have resulted in the possibility of achieving better performance with l…

www.sciencedirect.com

But, just to clarify, you ARE saying that mutations are fundamentally random

Some of them. Some are not actually random. Mutations caused by quantum events are irreducibly random.

and that they are one of the two driving forces of evolution, right?

No. Mutations can be raw material for evolution. But evolution can proceed in a population without mutations, if there is any variation at all in that population. Moreover, natural selection is not required for evolution itself. It is only directed evolution that requires natural selection. Absent natural selection, a population will still evolve, albeit without increasing fitness.

Speciation, which is called "macroevolution" needs mutation and natural selection to occur.

I assume by "driving forces" you mean agencies of evolution. Natural selection is one of those. Since allopatric speciation (speciation resulting from geographic isolation) is the most common mode of speciation, isolation and founder effect would be significant agencies of evolution as well. And scientists are beginning to realize that Darwin was correct in asserting that each organism is an agency in it's own:

After nearly a century of success, the Modern Synthesis theory is now being challenged by empirical advances in the
study of organismal development and inheritance. In this important study, D.M. Walsh shows that the principal defect of the Modern Synthesis resides in its rejection of Darwin’s organismal perspective, and argues for ‘situated Darwinism’: an alternative, organism-centred conception of evolution that prioritises organisms as adaptive agents

https://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/22109/frontmatter/9781107122109_frontmatter.pdf

 

[electedbyHim]

God says animals were formed from the earth. And science has found that the evidence does indicate that the Earth did indeed produce life that way. Man's body, like that of other animals was from the Earth. It's in our minds and spirits that we are in God's image. Jesus says that God is a spirit, and He says a spirit has no body.

If we can believe Jesus , then the "image" is not a physical one.

Thank you for the honest reply.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[KV-44-v1]

No, that excuse won't work. You've confused analogy with homology.

Huh? How?

The structure in non-avian dinosaurs would not allow chirping. Only until it evolved into a true syrinx, could that happen. But the transitional forms show how that happened. Just one of many, many such transitions that show how new kinds evolved.

Common creation. Variation. Tell me, does this alleged "transition" look smooth or quite rough?
A syrinx has many complex parts, yes? So what is the mechanism that gave the structure the parts necessary? And how are we supposed to believe that *chance and time and DNA* made those parts?

Extrapolating the normal genetic variation within kinds into Min-to-Min evo is absurd.
What about the gaps in the fossil record?

Nope. As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood freely admits, that it's very good evidence for such evolution.

Some who claim to be athiest admit there could be a God, too.

Your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise disagrees. He expresses confidence that someday there may be a satisfactory YE explanation, but at present, there is none. Would you like me to show you that, again?


I know you want to believe that, but the evidence, as Dr. Wise points out, shows otherwise.


Denying God's use of allegory won't really help you here. As Paul observes in Romans 1:20, his creation itself shows God's wisdom and majesty.

How do you know that Rom 1:20 isn't simply a story that represents something else? If we can question Genesis by allegorifying that, why stop there?
If you will soften up Genesis to appease athiests and the secular culture, why not give more ground to the opponents of the Church?

Those "invisible things, clearly seen" by those open to His revelation make this clear.

If that's allegory we cannot know that for sure. If its a fact statement then we can & do.

Why not just accept His word as it is? These things don't matter to your salvation,but they could help you have a closer relationship with Him.

 

[Barbarian]

Thank you for the honest reply.

Grace and peace to you.

And to you, too.

 

[Barbarian]

No, that excuse won't work. You've confused analogy with homology.

Huh? How?

You've confused "looks like" (say wings on insects and birds) with "derived from" as in the case of structures modified to new uses in dinosaurs.

Common creation. Variation. Tell me, does this alleged "transition" look smooth or quite rough?

When the evidence is first found, it always looks rough. Take the transition from reptiles to mammals. At first, we only had a few examples, and the "gaps" were rather large. Mammals have three middle ear bones and one lower jaw bone, while reptiles have fewer middle ear bones and more than one lower jaw bone.

But then as time went one, we found more and more transitional forms, showing how that evolved. But since the transition would require changing the jaw joint itself, it was hard to see how that happened. Until several transitional forms were found, having both joints. And the mystery was cleared up. That's how it always works.

And how are we supposed to believe that *chance and time and DNA* made those parts?

That's what your guys always try to sell, but as you've seen here, it's a (perhaps honestly ignorant) misrepresentation. Darwin's great discovery is that it isn't by chance. If you doubt this, I can give you a simulation to see how it works.

Extrapolating the normal genetic variation within kinds into Min-to-Min evo is absurd.

As even knowledgeable YE creationists admit, the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is very good. Would you like to see the many, many examples one of them cited?

What about the gaps in the fossil record?

That's the funny thing about gaps; they tend to close over time. When I started in biology we had gaps for birds from other dinosaurs, for mammals from reptiles, from frogs from other amphibians, for termites from roaches, for whales from land animals, for... (long list). But we now have transitionals for all of those and many more. Never base your faith in God on what man does not yet know.

As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood freely admits, that it's very good evidence for such evolution.

Some who claim to be athiest admit there could be a God, too.

Sometimes a person has a belief, but is honest enough to admit that the evidence doesn't support it. Dawkins and Dr. Wise are two examples.

How do you know that Rom 1:20 isn't simply a story that represents something else?

Give it a try; I think you'll come to realize why not.

If you will soften up Genesis

Why would taking it as it is be "softening it up?" As you see, the text itself says it's not literal. What's wrong with just believing it as it is?

In Romans 1:20 those "invisible things, clearly seen" by those open to His revelation make this clear.

How do you know that Rom 1:20 isn't simply a story that represents something else? If we can question Genesis by allegorifying that, why stop there?

That's not allegory. It's a figurative way of saying that one can learn of God by considering His creation. Obviously, something invisible is not clearly seen in a literal sense. This shouldn't be that hard to get.

Why not just accept His word as it is?

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Let me rephrase the question.

For Christians who believe in evolution, how do you explain we evolved from primates when the Bible teaches that we are formed from the dust of the ground and made in God's image?

A simple answer will be fine.

Not looking to argue.

I just gave you that explanation. Or, rather, a possible explanation. Please re-read what I wrote carefully.
I do understand your concern and quite frankly I do not think evolution as the synthetic theory describes it, is true.
However I do not think that, if it is true, it must negate the Holy Scriptures.
My proposed explanation is just given to show that we simply cannot know how everything happened and that possibilities exist that would be surprising if we knew the actual truth.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

No, that excuse won't work. You've confused analogy with homology.


You've confused "looks like" (say wings on insects and birds) with "derived from" as in the case of structures modified to new uses in dinosaurs.


When the evidence is first found, it always looks rough. Take the transition from reptiles to mammals. At first, we only had a few examples, and the "gaps" were rather large. Mammals have three middle ear bones and one lower jaw bone, while reptiles have fewer middle ear bones and more than one lower jaw bone.

But then as time went one, we found more and more transitional forms, showing how that evolved. But since the transition would require changing the jaw joint itself, it was hard to see how that happened. Until several transitional forms were found, having both joints. And the mystery was cleared up. That's how it always works.


That's what your guys always try to sell, but as you've seen here, it's a (perhaps honestly ignorant) misrepresentation. Darwin's great discovery is that it isn't by chance. If you doubt this, I can give you a simulation to see how it works.


As even knowledgeable YE creationists admit, the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is very good. Would you like to see the many, many examples one of them cited?


That's the funny thing about gaps; they tend to close over time. When I started in biology we had gaps for birds from other dinosaurs, for mammals from reptiles, from frogs from other amphibians, for termites from roaches, for whales from land animals, for... (long list). But we now have transitionals for all of those and many more. Never base your faith in God on what man does not yet know.

As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood freely admits, that it's very good evidence for such evolution.


Sometimes a person has a belief, but is honest enough to admit that the evidence doesn't support it. Dawkins and Dr. Wise are two examples.


Give it a try; I think you'll come to realize why not.

Why would taking it as it is be "softening it up?" As you see, the text itself says it's not literal. What's wrong with just believing it as it is?

In Romans 1:20 those "invisible things, clearly seen" by those open to His revelation make this clear.


That's not allegory. It's a figurative way of saying that one can learn of God by considering His creation. Obviously, something invisible is not clearly seen in a literal sense. This shouldn't be that hard to get.

Why not just accept His word as it is?

Concerning transitions:
I really think that the debate is contingent on geology. If, as the YECs say, the geologic column represents the Flood then all.ofbyiur transitions lived at the same time and would not be transitions.
Just pointing that out.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

You're assuming that God's power is limited to necessity, but He can't use contingency. But He is omnipotent.

That would require that God be limited in His ability.

And I don't think that's the case.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

You will have to excuse me saying so but that makes precisely zero sense to me. Words mean certain things and it seems like here that you are trying to redefine chance to be "not chance".
I don't think it is a doubt of God's abilities to say that if He plays dice then He doesn't control the out one because not controlling the outcome is an integral aspect of "playing dice". If it isn't then it is no longer playing dice but something else entirely.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Foundation of Genetic Algorithms​

Genetic algorithms are based on an analogy with the genetic structure and behavior of chromosomes of the population. Following is the foundation of GAs based on this analogy –

1. Individuals in the population compete for resources and mate
2. Those individuals who are successful (fittest) then mate to create more offspring than others
3. Genes from the “fittest” parent propagate throughout the generation, that is sometimes parents create offspring which is better than either parent.
4. Thus each successive generation is more suited for their environment.

Genetic Algorithms - GeeksforGeeks

A Computer Science portal for geeks. It contains well written, well thought and well explained computer science and programming articles, quizzes and practice/competitive programming/company interview Questions.

www.geeksforgeeks.org

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques​

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques

Although the advancements in automotive diesel engines in the last two decades have resulted in the possibility of achieving better performance with l…

www.sciencedirect.com

Some of them. Some are not actually random. Mutations caused by quantum events are irreducibly random.



No. Mutations can be raw material for evolution. But evolution can proceed in a population without mutations, if there is any variation at all in that population. Moreover, natural selection is not required for evolution itself. It is only directed evolution that requires natural selection. Absent natural selection, a population will still evolve, albeit without increasing fitness.

Speciation, which is called "macroevolution" needs mutation and natural selection to occur.

I assume by "driving forces" you mean agencies of evolution. Natural selection is one of those. Since allopatric speciation (speciation resulting from geographic isolation) is the most common mode of speciation, isolation and founder effect would be significant agencies of evolution as well. And scientists are beginning to realize that Darwin was correct in asserting that each organism is an agency in it's own:

After nearly a century of success, the Modern Synthesis theory is now being challenged by empirical advances in the
study of organismal development and inheritance. In this important study, D.M. Walsh shows that the principal defect of the Modern Synthesis resides in its rejection of Darwin’s organismal perspective, and argues for ‘situated Darwinism’: an alternative, organism-centred conception of evolution that prioritises organisms as adaptive agents

https://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/22109/frontmatter/9781107122109_frontmatter.pdf

I don't have any theological or philosophical issues with evolution that proceeds according to an unseen divine plan via "directed evolution". But as I have always understood it, the scientists are trying to say that evolution proceeds without any actual predetermined goal.
Also, how does anyone know that any event, quantum or otherwise, is "irreduciby random"?

 

[electedbyHim]

I just gave you that explanation. Or, rather, a possible explanation. Please re-read what I wrote carefully.
I do understand your concern and quite frankly I do not think evolution as the synthetic theory describes it, is true.
However I do not think that, if it is true, it must negate the Holy Scriptures.
My proposed explanation is just given to show that we simply cannot know how everything happened and that possibilities exist that would be surprising if we knew the actual truth.

Barbarian gaves me a clear answer.

It is not a concern to me. I just wanted to know what Christians who believe in evolution thought on my question.

I do not believe in evolution, that is why I asked the question.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have any theological or philosophical issues with evolution that proceeds according to an unseen divine plan via "directed evolution". But as I have always understood it, the scientists are trying to say that evolution proceeds without any actual predetermined goal.

It's because there is nothing in nature that shows a directed goal, other than fitness. Darwin's discovery was that evolution proceeds with a tendency to increase fitness in a population. Science can't consider the supernatural.

But scientists can. At least some of us. And those of us who can, see the hand of God in nature.

Also, how does anyone know that any event, quantum or otherwise, is "irreduciby random"?

Strictly speaking, we can't logically prove a negative. We are essentially saying that some things happen for which there is no cause. For quantum events, no cause is detectable. But maybe St. Tom's observation matters here. God can use contingency as easily as necessity to effect His will.

 

[Barbarian]

I do not believe in evolution, that is why I asked the question.

By "evolution", do you mean...?

1. changing allele frequencies in a population over time (scientific definition)
2. evolution that produced a new "kind" (depending on what you think a kind is)
3. Common descent of living things on Earth.

Strictly speaking, the first is what evolution is.
The second is called "speciation" or "macroevolution." Some creationists allow for some macroevolution, within "kinds."
The third is merely a consequence of evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

You will have to excuse me saying so but that makes precisely zero sense to me. Words mean certain things and it seems like here that you are trying to redefine chance to be "not chance".

I think "contingency" has a somewhat different meaning than the common notion of "chance." Contingency, as I see it, means something not caused by anything. Rolling dice does not involve contingency; the outcome of the roll is due to understandable physical processes. But it certainly involves chance, as people generally consider the word to be.

God seems to favor this understanding:

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

 

[Barbarian]

Concerning transitions:
I really think that the debate is contingent on geology. If, as the YECs say, the geologic column represents the Flood then all.ofbyiur transitions lived at the same time and would not be transitions.
Just pointing that out.

Good point. In fact, the geologic column is inconsistent with a single flood event. We find, in the column, deserts and forests that would have had to have formed in the middle of the Flood. Even worse...

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to
come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by
Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one
hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:
toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Dr. Wise goes on to suggest possible ways to explain this issue in creationist terms, but as of yet, that hasn't worked out. One of the more interesting and speculative possibilities is:

Collected evidence from sightings of Nessie, Champs, and other similar sightings at similar latitudes has suggested that they might be living examples of the archaeocete Basilosaurus (old name Zeuglodon). If so, then its elusive nature and low population density might suggest how the pre-Flood whales survived the Flood without representation in Flood sediments. In any case, the capture of an actual Basilosaurus would go a long way towards solving this mystery.
ibid

 

[electedbyHim]

By "evolution", do you mean...?

1. changing allele frequencies in a population over time (scientific definition)
2. evolution that produced a new "kind" (depending on what you think a kind is)
3. Common descent of living things on Earth.

Strictly speaking, the first is what evolution is.
The second is called "speciation" or "macroevolution." Some creationists allow for some macroevolution, within "kinds."
The third is merely a consequence of evolution.

Ha, thats way over my head.

When I say evolution....

Big bang
Earth Billions of years old.
Humans coming from amoeba.

That is my understanding.

I never had any interest in Science even from a very young age.

Just never bought into any of it.

I have done some studies in the past, that show how science came from the Bible.

Grace and peace to you.